1. law, govt and politics

Is “fair use” an option for U.K. copyright legislation?
By
Martin Brenncke
Institut für Wirtschaftsrecht
Forschungsstelle für Transnationales Wirtschaftsrecht
Juristische und Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Fakultät
der Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg
Dipl.-Jur. Martin Brenncke is research assistant at the Department of Civil Law, Company Law, European Law, International Private Law and Comparative Law (Prof. Dr.
Sethe, LL.M.) at the Faculty of Law, Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, Germany.
Christian Tietje/Gerhard Kraft/Rolf Sethe (Hrsg.), Beiträge zum Transnationalen
Wirtschaftsrecht, Heft 71
Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Bibliothek
Die Deutsche Bibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet unter
http://www.dnb.ddb.de abrufbar.
ISSN 1612-1368
ISBN 978-3-86010-963-2
Schutzgebühr Euro 5
Die Hefte der Schriftenreihe „Beiträge zum Transnationalen Wirtschaftsrecht“ finden
sich zum Download auf der Website des Instituts bzw. der Forschungsstelle für
Transnationales Wirtschaftsrecht unter den Adressen:
www.wirtschaftsrecht.uni-halle.de
www.telc.uni-halle.de
Institut für Wirtschaftsrecht
Forschungsstelle für Transnationales Wirtschaftsrecht
Juristische Fakultät
Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg
Universitätsplatz 5
D-06099 Halle (Saale)
Tel.: 0345-55-23149 / -55-23180
Fax: 0345-55-27201
E-Mail: [email protected]
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 5
B. The concepts of fair use and fair dealing.................................................................. 7
I. The fair dealing defences to copyright infringement in the U.K. ...................... 7
II. The fair use doctrine.......................................................................................... 7
III. The fairness of a use or dealing.......................................................................... 8
C. Advantages of a fair use test / Disadvantages of the fair dealing defences................. 9
I. Flexibility of fair use vs. rigidity of fair dealing.................................................. 9
1. Inflexibility of the fair dealing defences....................................................... 9
2. Flexibility of fair use: Reverse engineering of computer programs ............ 10
3. Flexibility of fair use: The importance of the issue of fairness ................... 11
II. Simplicity of fair use vs. complexity of fair dealing.......................................... 11
D. Disadvantages of a fair use test / Advantages of the fair dealing defences............... 12
I. Uncertainty of fair use vs. predictability of fair dealing ................................... 12
1. The interpretation of fair use depends on the judge’s personal
perspective................................................................................................. 12
2. The benefits of the need of legislative activity to add new exceptions ....... 13
II. Non-compliance of a fair use test with U.K.’s international treaty
obligations ....................................................................................................... 13
1. The “three-step test“ ................................................................................. 13
2. Non-compliance of a fair use test with the three-step test......................... 14
a) Is a fair use defence a certain special case under the three-step test?.... 14
b) The relevance of the potential scope of users ...................................... 14
III. Non-compliance of a fair use test with EC law ............................................... 15
1. Directive 2001/29/EC provides for an exhaustive list of exceptions ......... 15
2. Directive 2001/29/EC incorporates the three-step test ............................. 15
E. The necessity of a transformation of judicial attitudes ........................................... 16
I. The development of the public interest defence .............................................. 16
II. Even a flexible fair use defence may ossify ....................................................... 16
F. Conclusion............................................................................................................. 17
Table of statues............................................................................................................. 18
References .................................................................................................................... 20
A. Introduction∗
U.K. copyright law grants broad exclusive rights to encourage authors to create
and to distribute new works. These exclusive rights are counter-balanced by provisions
that allow limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the
rights holder. The exceptions to copyright infringement contained in the Copyright,
Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA) stipulate that certain acts will not infringe
copyright in a work; notwithstanding that they would otherwise fall under the normal
definition of infringement.1 The permitted acts strike the balance between the exclusive rights of a copyright owner and the public’s need for access.2
Perhaps the most significant defences to copyright infringement are the fair dealing provisions that are codified in ss. 29 and 30 CDPA. These defences apply solely to
acts that comply with the purposes of an allegedly infringing act specifically listed in
the CDPA. The limitedness of the permitted purposes is one of the main reasons why
the doctrine of fair dealing has been under attack for some time. Voices calling for an
adoption of the more general doctrine of “fair use” grew in the recent past.3 The concept of fair use is a parallel concept to the fair dealing provisions in the U.K. But in
contrast to the fair dealing provisions a fair use provision is not limited to certain purposes of the allegedly infringing act. The most eminent representative of a fair use
doctrine is by far the U.S.4
In the 2005 Pre-Budget Report the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon
Brown, commissioned Andrew Gowers to review whether the intellectual property system in the U.K. is fit for purpose in an era of globalisation, digitisation and increasing
economic specialisation.5 In his review Gowers identified the current fair dealing provisions as being of low flexibility.6 Although parallels to the more flexible U.S. doctrine
∗
1
2
3
4
5
6
Many thanks are due to Alexis James.
6
Bainbridge, Intellectual Property , 194; Dworkin/Taylor,
Blackstone's guide to the CDPA, 70;4
5
Flint/Fitzpatrick/Thorne, User's guide to copyright , 113; Torremans, Intellectual property law ,
248.
6
Bainbridge, Intellectual Property , 194; Griffiths, IPQ (2000), 164 (169); cf. Bently/Sherman, Intel2
lectual Property Law , 190.
Other Commonwealth countries, e.g. Canada and Australia, have seen a similar debate on the
adoption of a fair use doctrine into their copyright law. In May 2005 the Australian government
published an Issues paper calling for submissions on fair use and other copyright exceptions. In
particular, the government seeked opinions on whether the fair dealing exceptions stipulated in the
Australian Copyright Act should be replaced by an open-ended fair use exception. In December
2006 the Copyright Amendment Act received Royal Assent. Although the Act introduced a series
of new exceptions (e.g. parody, satire and a limited private use exception) into Australian copyright law the fair dealing provisions were broadened and not replaced by a model which resembles
a fair use exception. The Issues Paper “Fair use and other copyright exceptions” and the various
submissions to it are available on the internet: <http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/agd.nsf/Page/
Publications_Copyright-ReviewofFairUseExeption-May2005> (visited on 3 November 2007).
The Copyright Amendment Act 2006, particularly Schedule 6, pages 91 et seq., is available on
<http://www.comlaw.gov.au> (visited on 3 November 2007).
This article will therefore focus on the law of the United States in regard to the doctrine of fair use.
Gowers Review, Foreword, 3.
Gowers Review, 44, 61 et seq.
6
of fair use were drawn in the Gowers Review7 it was not proposed to adopt such a doctrine. Instead of such a radical overhaul Mr. Gowers recommended to increase the
flexibility of the current provisions by introducing more permitted purposes such as
parody and by introducing a limited private copying exception.8 Furthermore, he suggested that Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (InfoSoc Directive)9 be amended to
allow for an exception for transformative and orphan works.10 The Gowers Review was
published in early December 2006. Shortly thereafter the then Prime-Minister-inwaiting Gordon Brown presented his tenth Pre-Budget Report and called on the EU
to amend its copyright laws in accordance with the recommendations made in the
Gowers Review.11 Meanwhile the European Commission itself had commissioned a
study on the implementation and effect in member states’ laws of Directive
2001/29/EC in 2005. The Study was published in February 2007. It examined
whether the application of the Directive in light of the development of the digital
market responds to the question of whether the Directive, as currently formulated,
remains the appropriate response to continuing challenges.12 It was announced in the
Study that actual harmonisation for the provisions on limitations and exceptions to
copyright infringement has hardly been achieved among the member states. Therefore, action by the EC legislator to remedy this lack of harmonisation was recommended.13 As in the Gowers Review the concept of fair use was considered as an alternative to the current provisions. But again, it did not find its way into the recommendations for legislative activity.14
What the Gowers Review demonstrated clearly is that the defences to copyright infringement contained in the fair dealing provisions of the CDPA need to be amended.
But it stopped short of proposing that a broad fair use doctrine should be introduced.
Whether the current fair dealing provisions in the U.K. should be replaced by a simple test of “fair use” is the question that this article will answer. Is “fair use” a desirable
option for U.K. copyright legislation?15
Chapter B introduces the doctrine of fair use and the fair dealing provisions in the
U.K. Chapter C surveys the advantages of a fair use concept on the one hand and the
disadvantages of the fair dealing defences in the U.K. on the other hand. Chapter D
elaborates on the legal issues which would be entailed by an adoption of a fair use doc7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Cf. Gowers Review, 40, 62, 66.
Gowers Review, 6.
Directive 2001/29/EC was implemented into U.K. legislation on 31 October 2003.
Gowers Review, 6, 68, 71.
Cf. The Times, 6 December 2006, “Brown will go into battle against film and music pirates”,
available on the internet: <http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/
article661265.ece> (visited on 3 November 2007).
Study on the implementation of Directive 2001/29/EC, Preface, available on the internet:
<http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/studies/studies_en.htm> (visited on 3 November
2007).
Ibid., 166, 168.
Cf. ibid., 175, 178.
This article will not elaborate on legislative proposals to amend the fair dealing defences or on
proposals to create new defences to copyright infringement alongside the fair dealing provisions.
This has already been done in detail in the Gowers Review and in the Study on the implementation and effect in member states’ laws of Directive 2001/29/EC.
7
trine and which would be omitted, if the fair dealing provisions remained in the
CDPA. Chapter E then shows that the mere implementation of a fair use test might
not make the law more flexible, unless accompanied by a change of judicial attitudes.
B. The concepts of fair use and fair dealing
I. The fair dealing defences to copyright infringement in the U.K.
Among the exceptions to copyright infringement are the fair dealing provisions
that are codified in ss. 29 and 30 CDPA. Pursuant to these provisions, a person is not
liable for copyright infringement, if his act amounts to fair dealing for the purposes of
non-commercial research or private study (s. 29(1), 29(1C)), for the purposes of criticism or review (s. 30(1)), or for the purpose of reporting current events (s. 30(2)).
One characteristic of fair dealing is that it is only permitted for the purposes listed in
the CDPA which means that it is irrelevant whether the dealing is fair in general or
fair for a purpose not specified in the Act.16 If a dealing falls within one of the purposes specified in the CDPA, its fairness must then be shown. What is fair is however
not defined in the Act. It is rather a question of degree and impression17. Guidance
can nevertheless be drawn from case law which has developed factors that are considered relevant to determine fairness. The importance given to each of these factors depends on the circumstances surrounding the infringing act and therefore varies according to the case in question.18 Among the factors are the quantity and quality of
what has been taken from the copyrighted work,19 the use made of the work in question, particularly the question whether the alleged fair dealing is commercially competing with the copyrighted work,20 and the motives of the alleged infringer21.
II. The fair use doctrine
The U.S. operates a general doctrine of fair use as a defence to copyright infringement.22 It is codified in s. 107 of the United States Copyright Act 1976
(USCA). This section stipulates that fair use of a copyrighted work for purposes such
as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research, is not an
infringement of copyright. In determining whether a use is fair, a judge is required to
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Beloff v Pressdram, (1973) 1 All ER 241 (262) (Ungoed-Thomas
J); Burrell, IPQ (2001), 361
2
(362); Bently/Sherman, Intellectual Property Law , 193; Copinger, para. 9-07; Dworkin/Taylor,
Blackstone's guide to CDPA, 71.
BBC v BSB Ltd, (1992) Ch 141 (149) (Scott J); Beloff v Pressdram, (1973) FSR 33 (61) (UngoedThomas J); Hubbard v Vosper, (1972) 2 QB 84 (94) (Lord Denning MR).
6
2
Bainbridge, Intellectual Property , 197; Bently/Sherman, Intellectual Property Law , 194; Torre4
mans, Intellectual property law , 253 et seq.
Hubbard v Vosper, (1972) 2 QB 84 (94) (Lord Denning MR); Bently/Sherman, Intellectual Prop2
erty Law , 195.
Newspaper Licensing Agency v Marks & Spencer, (2001) Ch 257 (280) (Chadwick LJ); Hyde Park v
2
Yelland, (2000) EMLR 363 (379) (Aldous LJ); Bently/Sherman, Intellectual Property Law , 195.
Hyde Park v Yelland, (2000) EMLR 363 (379) (Aldous LJ); Pro Sieben v Carlton UK Television,
2
(1999) FSR 610 (620) (Walker LJ); Bently/Sherman, Intellectual Property Law , 195 et seq.
Leaffer, 62 Ohio St. L.J. (2001), 849 (865); Newby, Stan. L. Rev. 51 (1998-99), 1633 (1642).
8
consider four factors: The purpose and character of the use (s. 107(1) USCA), the
nature of the copyrighted work (s. 107 (2) USCA), the amount and substantiality of
what has been taken from the copyrighted work (s. 107(3) USCA), and the effect of
the use upon the potential market for the copyrighted work (s. 107(4) USCA). The
House Report accompanying the bill which was enacted as s. 107 USCA indicates
that the fair use exception to copyright infringement is a broad and flexible doctrine.23
The Report states that “since the doctrine is an equitable rule of reason, no generally
applicable definition is possible, and each case raising the question must be decided on
its own facts. […] the courts must be free to adapt the doctrine to particular situations
on a case-by-case basis.”24
Consequently, in respect of the vast scope of the doctrine, the list of uses in s. 107
USCA is not exhaustive, so that a conduct for any purpose may be fair use if it satisfies
the requirement of fairness.25 Moreover, the words “shall include” in s. 107 USCA
indicate that the factors specified in this section are not exhaustive either and that a
judge must consider the four factors when determining whether a particular use is
fair.26 The listed factors serve as guidelines rather than confining rules and since other
considerations are permissible, courts are free to take non-statutory factors into account whenever they appear relevant.27 Thus, the weight that is given to a certain factor depends on the facts of the particular case.28
III. The fairness of a use or dealing
In regard to the question whether a dealing or use is fair, U.K. and U.S. law bear
certain similarities. The four factors stipulated in s. 107 USCA resemble the factors
that were developed by the English courts. A U.S. court can further rely on any nonstatutory factor and as in the U.K. the weighing between the different factors can vary
depending on the facts of the case in question. Furthermore, if the fair dealing defences of the CDPA were replaced by a fair use test, there would be no need to integrate any factor that indicates whether a use is fair into the statutory language. A simple fair use test that only deals with the purposes of a use could be enacted and in determining the fairness of such a use reliance on English case law could be made.
Therefore, this article will focus on the permitted purposes of a use or dealing. It will
elaborate on the advantages and disadvantages of the concept of fair use which applies
to all types of work and which is not limited to an exclusive set of purposes.
23
24
25
26
27
28
Dratler, U. Miami L. Rev. 43 (1988), 233 (258); Newby, Stan. L. Rev. 51 (1998-99), 1633
(1637); Weatherall, Fair use, fair dealing, 8; cf. Stewart v Abend, 495 U.S. 207 (236) (1990) (“the
very creativity which that law [s. 107 USCA] is designed to foster”).
th
H.R. Rep. No. 1476, 94 Congress, 2nd Session, 65 et seq.; cf. Sony Corp of America v Universal
City Studios Inc, (1984) 2 IPR 225 (245) (SC(USA)).
Campbell v Acuff-Rose Music, 510 U.S. 569 (1994); Cohen, EIPR (1999), 236 (238); Newby, Stan.
L. Rev. 51 (1998-99), 1633 (1637); cf. Stewart v Abend, 495 U.S. 207 (236) (1990).
Stewart v Abend, 495 U.S. 207 (236) (1990); Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v Nation Enterprises,
471 U.S. 539 (560) (1985); Lehman, US Report of the Working Group on IPRs, 79.
Dratler, U. Miami L. Rev. 43 (1988), 233 (258, 333); Newby, Stan. L. Rev. 51 (1998-99), 1633
(1639).
Dratler, U. Miami L. Rev. 43 (1988), 233 (258); Newby, Stan. L. Rev. 51 (1998-99), 1633
(1639).
9
C. Advantages of a fair use test / Disadvantages of the fair dealing defences
I. Flexibility of fair use vs. rigidity of fair dealing
One of the features of a general fair use doctrine is its breadth. It is broadly applicable to all kinds and uses of copyrighted work. Thus, the doctrine can apply to an
endless variety of cases and the courts can adapt it to new situations through a case-bycase development, if the circumstances so demand. A fair use test offers much greater
flexibility than the fair dealing defences in the CDPA which are limited to a specific
set of purposes of the use.29 Through its flexibility a fair use test accommodates the
challenges posed by rapid technological developments30 because judges can determine
the existence of additional purposes to which fair use can apply. They are not tied to a
statutory language which might become obsolete as technology changes. The capacity
of such a dynamic doctrine to retain its relevance even for new demands which are
created by the digital environment is proven by the U.S. fair use provision (s. 107
USCA) which did not require constant revision in order to keep pace with technological breakthroughs such as the personal computer and the internet.31
1. Inflexibility of the fair dealing defences
To the contrary, the fair dealing provisions in the U.K. are more restrictive in
scope as well as in their applicability, since they only apply to uses for specific, finite
purposes. Moreover, s. 29(1) CDPA for instance does not include dealings which take
place with broadcast, sound recording or film. It would therefore not be possible for a
researcher to copy a part of a sound recording without infringing the copyrighted
work; although he would not infringe the underlying musical work with his copying.
Hence, it can be argued that the limited scope of s. 29(1) CDPA does not appropriately represent the increasing importance of non-textual media for study and research.32
The rigidity and the narrowness of the fair dealing provisions are criticized by
scholars33 who opine that these provisions leave no flexibility for the law to adapt itself
to future technological changes.34 Take format shifting for instance. Format shifting
refers to an act of an individual changing the format of a copyrighted work with the
help of technical devices; e.g., the individual copies a video he or she owns into a digital format or copies music from a CD that he or she purchased onto a computer or
MP3 player for personal use. U.K. copyright law lacks a provision which allows copy29
30
31
32
33
34
Copinger, para. 9-07; Laddie, EIPR (1996), 253 (258); cf. Gervais, The reverse three-step test, 27;
Weatherall, Fair use, fair dealing, 8 (for Australian law).
AU Copyright Law Review Committee, Simplification of the Copyright Act 1968, para. 6.08; Carroll, Fixing Fair Use, 64 et seq.; Macmillan, Dig. Tech. L.J. (1999), 13.
Tasini v New York Times Co., 972 F. Supp. 804 (816) (S.D.N.Y. 1997); Ayers, U. Pitt. L. Rev. 62
(2000-01), 49 (76).
Copinger, para. 9-08.
Laddie, EIPR (1996), 253 (258); cf. Burrell, IPQ (2001), 361 (365); Weatherall, Fair use, fair
dealing, 17 (for Australian law).
AU Copyright Law Review Committee, Simplification of the Copyright Act 1968, para. 6.06-6.08;
cf. Power, EIPR (1997), 444 (452 et seq).
10
ing for private or personal use. Therefore, format shifting of copyright material infringes copyright under U.K. law and is prohibited.35 This situation is out of step with
consumer attitudes and the technological development.36
Focusing on the very recent past, Google’s Book Search is another example to
which the fair dealing provisions are unlikely to apply. Google scans into its search
database books and other materials from the libraries it cooperates with. When a user
enters a search query online Google’s Book Search searches the full text of books that
are stored in the digital database. In response to the search query, the user will be able
to fully browse public-domain works, but only some pages or some sentences of text
in books that are still covered by copyright. Google’s Book Search includes two actions that raise copyright concerns. Firstly, Google copies the full text of copyrighted
books into its search database. Secondly, Google provides the reader with segments of
the copyrighted book in response to the search query. Both actions fall within the
scope of the doctrine of fair use under U.S. copyright law.37 Currently, several lawsuits
are pending before U.S. courts which were filed against Google’s Book Search.38 Under U.K. copyright law however, Google’s Book Search is unlikely to satisfy any of the
purposes given in the fair dealing provisions.39 Since neither the fair dealing defences
nor any other defence to copyright infringement would apply, Google’s Book Search
would infringe U.K. copyright law from the very outset.
Particularly the latter two examples – format shifting and Google’s Book Search –
demonstrate that it is impossible to predict new uses to which new technologies may
give rise. Fair dealing provisions that only allow for a limited number of purposes of
an act can never be comprehensive in their coverage and therefore may discriminate
against digital technology and the dynamism of the information society. Besides, although Parliament can try to keep the law abreast to current developments, the legislative process can last for years so that the law stays frozen and remains outdated for a
long time before its amendment. This is not to say that the law may remain outdated
even after its amendment due to novel uses that have evolved in the meantime.
2. Flexibility of fair use: Reverse engineering of computer programs
One example which shows the flexibility of the fair use doctrine in contrast to the
fair dealing defences is the method of reverse engineering of computer programs.
Generally, reverse engineering requires the deconstruction of the original program’s
literal code. The results obtained can then be used to create compatible and interoper35
36
37
38
39
Gowers Review, 62.
Gowers Review, 62 et seq.; cf. House of Representatives, Copyright Amendment Bill 2006, explanatory memorandum, 6 (for Australian law), available on the internet: <http://legislation.gov.au/
ComLaw/Legislation/Bills1.nsf/0/D052936F5620B888CA25721000039385/$file/06157em.pdf>
(visited on 3 November 2007).
Band, JIBC 10 (2003), no. 3; Ganley, Google Book Search, 7 et seq., available on the internet:
<http://www.ssrn.com> (visited on 3 November 2007). Cf. Ganley, Google Book Search, 12 et
seq. and Travis, U. Miami L. Rev. 61 (2006), 601 (637 et seq.) for a detailed fair use analysis of
Google’s Book Search.
Cf. Ganley, Google Book Search, 5 et seq. and Travis, U. Miami L. Rev. 61 (2006), 601 (626 et
seq.) for more details on the lawsuits issued against Google.
Ganley, Google Book Search, 20, 35.
11
able programs which may contain code of the original program to such a degree that it
amounts to copyright infringement.40 In order to allow reverse engineering of computer programs under fair dealing in the U.K. it would have to qualify as occurring for
the purposes of non-commercial research or private study. However, concerning one
of the main reasons of the reverse engineering effort which is to use the new standardized product solely for commercial purposes, it seems hardly imaginable that reverse
engineering of computer software would be covered by research or private study41.
Reverse engineering is nonetheless covered by s. 50B CDPA.42 Likewise, it is covered
by a specific provision – s. 1201(f) USCA, introduced by the Digital Millennium
Copyright Act 1998 – in the U.S. But before its codification into U.S. law the fair use
defence had been applied in reverse engineering cases.43 Hence, contrary to the fair
dealing defences in the U.K., the fair use doctrine has shown itself more flexible and
broad to include these cases.
3. Flexibility of fair use: The importance of the issue of fairness
Moreover, the flexibility of the fair use doctrine to adapt to changing needs is not
only secured through its potential boundlessness of purposes of a use that it recognizes. It is also preserved by the fact that an U.S. court can rely on any non-statutory
factor when considering the issue of fairness and may vary the weight given to each of
the factors according to the specific facts of the case. However, as indicated above,
English courts follow a similar approach to fairness as their U.S. counterparts and reliance on case law could be made in regard to fairness, if a simple fair use test was introduced into U.K. law. Thus, the influence of the fairness-determining process towards the advantages and disadvantages of a fair use doctrine is not further scrutinised
in this article.
II. Simplicity of fair use vs. complexity of fair dealing
Another advantage of a fair use test is its simplicity. It combines all possible fair
dealing exceptions into one single and short provision; thereby simplifying its wording
and structure which makes the law simpler to read and easier to understand for users.44
In contrast, the current fair dealing provisions in the U.K. are a complex set of rules.
For instance, according to s. 29(4) CDPA the conversion of a computer program cannot constitute fair dealing. However, s. 29(4) CDPA also refers to s. 50B CDPA
which permits such an act if certain conditions are fulfilled. This system of exception
to copyright infringement (s. 29(1)), exception to the exception (s. 29(4)(a),(b)) and
40
41
42
43
44
Handa, McGill L.J. 40 (1995), 621 (632 et seq.).
Burrell, IPQ (2001), 361 (387).
This provision was introduced into the law as a result of the Computer Program Directive (Directive 91/250/EC).
th
Sega Enterprises Ltd v Accolade, Inc. 977 F2d 1510 (9 Cir. 1992); Atari Games Corp. v Nintendo of
America, Inc., 975 F2d 832 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Handa, McGill L.J. 40 (1995), 621 (684).
Ricketson, EIPR (1999), 537 (537, 549); cf. AU Copyright Law Review Committee, Simplification
of the Copyright Act 1968, para. 6.02-6.08; Weatherall, Fair use, fair dealing, 8.
12
exception to the exception for the exception (s. 50B) which also contains references to
other relevant provisions (cf. s. 29(4),(4A)) was introduced into the CDPA in order to
implement the EC Software Directive45. It exemplifies the danger that future legislative amendments which are necessary to keep the law in accordance with technological developments provide for more detailed and nested provisions which make the law
more complex and more difficult to understand.
A certain degree of complexity in the law may nevertheless be required when legislation deals with technical subjects, such as computer software or telecommunications,
because lay language may be inadequate to represent the nuances of these issues.46
Hence, even a fair use test would not be immune to possible future amendments
which may add complexity to its language, if the technological developments so require.
D. Disadvantages of a fair use test / Advantages of the fair dealing defences
I. Uncertainty of fair use vs. predictability of fair dealing
Since a simple fair use test is not restricted to an exhaustive set of purposes and
comprises all types of work, its application is a case-by-case determination. Due to this
open-ended approach, the contours of the fair use doctrine remain vague and the outcome of fair use cases is said to be hardly predictable.47 The uncertainty of the doctrine
in how a court will finally decide is part of what has led to its reputation as the most
troublesome doctrine in U.S. copyright law.48
1. The interpretation of fair use depends on the judge’s personal perspective
It is therefore comprehensible that the doctrine often fails to provide concrete
guidance for the parties49 and fosters litigation50 if the interpretation of the fair use
defence depends considerably on the judge’s personal perspective51. The balancing
process between the copyright holder’s rights and the public interest in the dissemination of the work it thus likely to be influenced by the relative copyright expertise of
the court and the personal value system of individual judges52. Although this balancing
process partly requires the selection among competing values by judges – particularly
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
2
Bently/Sherman, Intellectual Property Law , 200.
Ricketson, EIPR (1999), 537 (537).
Leaffer, Ohio St. L.J. 62 (2001), 849 (852, 855); Leval, Harv. L. Rev. 103 (1990), 1105 (1106 et
seq.); Okediji, Colum. J. Transnat 39 (2000), 75 (118); cf. Burrell/Coleman, Copyright Exceptions, 250 et seq.; Carroll, Fixing Fair Use, 20; Weatherall, Fair use, fair dealing, 8 et seq.
th
Universal City Studios v Sony Corp. of America, 659 F.2d 963 (969) (9 Cir. 1981); Dellar v Samuel
nd
Goldwyn, Inc., 104 F.2d 661 (662) (2 Cir. 1939); cf. de Zwart, IPQ (2007), 60 (87 et seq.).
Bently, Dig. Tech. L.J. (1999), 2; Carroll, Fixing Fair Use, 13 et seq., 36; Leaffer, Ohio St. L.J. 62
(2001), 849 (855).
Bently, Dig. Tech. L.J. (1999), 2; Weinreb, Fordham L. Rev. 67 (1998-99), 1291 (1309).
Ayers, U. Pitt. L. Rev. 62 (2000-2001), 49 (76); Dratler, U. Miami L. Rev. 43 (1988), 233 (255 et
seq.); Laddie, EIPR (1996), 253 (258); cf. Leval, Harv. L. Rev. 103 (1990), 1105 (1106 et seq.).
Dratler, U. Miami L. Rev. 43 (1988), 233 (255 et seq.); Okediji, Colum. J. Transnat 39 (2000),
75 (119).
13
when a judge needs to determine the fairness of a use – construing the whole doctrine
of fair use on judicial discretion explains why scholars criticize the doctrine for its absence of consistent, principled application.
2. The benefits of the need of legislative activity to add new exceptions
Moreover, even though new purposes can come within the scope of the fair use
doctrine, before the contours of a new exception are clearly worked out by the courts,
delay and expenses in courtrooms are likely to occur.53 This delay and additional expenses for “test cases” are omitted by the fair dealing system in the U.K. which requires legislative activity in order to add new purposes to it. Legislative activity also
has the advantage that it is best suited to deal with political issues and that is what
determining fair use is often about.54 For instance, if the technical progress creates new
uses or purposes, it needs to be clarified where the line is to be drawn between the
exclusive rights of copyright owners and the public’s need for access. This process often involves rights of large groups; and it is the pre-legislative stage that assures that
proponents of each side can expound and defend their interests. Consequently, the
fair dealing provisions in the U.K. provide for legal certainty through a catalogue of
specifically defined exceptions that can only be enlarged by Parliament. It has further
the advantage in that each of the statutory exemptions reflects a legislative compromise between relevant industry groups.
II. Non-compliance of a fair use test with U.K.’s international treaty obligations
If a fair use test were to replace the current fair dealing provisions, it would also
have to be consistent with U.K.’s international treaty obligations. The U.K. is a member state of the Berne Convention and of the Agreement on trade-related aspects of
intellectual property rights (TRIPS) which both provide for limitations and exceptions
to copyright infringement.55
1. The “three-step test“
Art. 9(2) Berne Convention contains what is known as the “three-step test”:
Three conditions which must be satisfied when exceptions to the reproduction right
are introduced into national legislation. TRIPS adopted the Berne Convention’s
three-step test in its art. 13 and broadened its scope since the test is applicable to any
limitations and exceptions to any of the exclusive rights guaranteed under TRIPS.56
The three-step test requires that (a) all limitations or exceptions must be confined to
53
54
55
56
Carroll, Fixing Fair Use, 10, 36; cf. Handa, McGill L.J. 40 (1995), 621 (684); Ricketson, EIPR
(1999), 537 (543).
Leaffer, Ohio St. L.J. 62 (2001), 849 (866).
6
2
Bainbridge, Intellectual Property , 16 et seq.; Bently/Sherman, Intellectual Property Law , 37-41.
WTO, United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act, Report of 2the Panel on 15 June
2000, WT/DS160/R, para. 6.74; Bently/Sherman, Intellectual
Property Law , 37-41; Goldstein, In2
ternational copyright, 294; Sterling, World copyright law , para. 10.13.
14
certain special cases, (b) do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work, and
(c) do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author.57
2. Non-compliance of a fair use test with the three-step test
The crucial question in regard to the compliance of a fair use test with the Berne
Convention and TRIPS is whether such a test is confined to certain special cases.
Whereas some scholars argue that the fair use provision in the U.S. (s. 107 USCA)
meets the requirements of the three-step test,58 others submit that it is too broad to
qualify as a certain special case.59
a) Is a fair use defence a certain special case under the three-step test?
Guidance as to how to interpret the phrase “certain special cases” was given by the
WTO Panel which ruled on the compliance of s. 110(5) USCA with the TRIPS
Agreement, inter alia art. 13 TRIPS.60 The Panel laid down that art. 13 TRIPS requires that exceptions in national legislation should be clearly defined and narrow in
scope.61 It was argued in the preceding paragraphs that the application of the fair use
test is a complete case-by-case determination and that the question of how a court will
finally decide a fair use case is uncertain and hardly predictable. Moreover, the fair use
test can potentially apply to all types of work and to any purposes of a use which
makes it capable of endless expansion by the courts. The breadth of the doctrine was
already recognized by the legislature when the doctrine was incorporated into the statute since Congress noted in its House Report that “no generally applicable definition
is possible” for fair use.62 Therefore, considering the WTO Panel’s definition of certain special cases, the doctrine cannot be said to be clearly defined or narrow in scope
because of its uncertain and broad character. A fair use test is not limited to certain
special cases.
b) The relevance of the potential scope of users
Further, the Panel remarked that the potential scope of users who can rely on an
exception is also relevant for determining whether the exception is sufficiently limited
57
58
59
60
61
62
Art. 13 TRIPS; Art. 9(2) Berne Convention.
Geller, Int'l Law. 29 (1995), 99 (112); cf. AU Copyright Law Review Committee, Simplification of
the Copyright Act 1968, para. 6.14.
Okediji, Colum. J. Transnat 39 (2000), 75 (126); Ricketson, WIPO Study on Limitations and
Exceptions of Copyright and Related Rights in the Digital Environment, 5 April 2003, WIPO
doc. SCCR/9/7, 68 et seq., available on the internet: <http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/
copyright/en/sccr_9/sccr_9_7.pdf> (visited on 3 November 2007); cf. Coombe, DePaul L. Rev. 52
(2003), 1171 (1183).
WTO, United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act, Report of the Panel on 15 June
2000, WT/DS160/R (hereinafter: WTO Panel Report).
WTO Panel Report, 33, 34 (para. 6.112).
th
H.R. Rep. No. 1476, 94 Cong., 2nd Session, 65.
15
in order to constitute a certain special case.63 The fair use doctrine can be relied on by
any user who defends himself against a claim of copyright infringement and is unlimited in the scope of users. This circumstance also fosters the view that a fair use test is
not limited to certain special cases.
Consequently, in the light of the foregoing arguments, a simple fair use test does
not comply with the three-step test of art. 9(2) Berne Convention and art. 13 TRIPS
and is therefore inconsistent with U.K.’s international treaty obligations.
III. Non-compliance of a fair use test with EC law
Due to U.K.’s membership in the European Union, a simple fair use defence
must further comply with EC legislation. The legislation which affects the legitimacy
of a fair use test is Directive 2001/29/EC.
1. Directive 2001/29/EC provides for an exhaustive list of exceptions
In its art. 5, Directive 2001/29/EC sets out an exhaustive list of exceptions to
copyright infringement and thereby prohibits member states to adopt any other new
limitation and exception within domestic copyright legislation.64 A fair use defence
thus is incompatible with the limited nature of art. 5 of the Directive because it never
becomes truly closed and may recognize any new purpose of a use to fall within its
scope. This result is reached under the condition that the InfoSoc Directive is compatible with the provisions of the Community Treaties: A statement that is doubted
by some scholars who assert that the InfoSoc Directive lacks a proper legal basis since
it does not accomplish its main raîson d’être, the harmonisation of the laws of the
member states.65
2. Directive 2001/29/EC incorporates the three-step test
Moreover, art. 5(5) of the InfoSoc Directive further incorporates the Berne Convention’s and TRIPS’ three-step test. It stipulates that all limitations and exceptions to
the copyright owner’s rights66 are subject to this test.67 Hence, whatever exception to
copyright infringement the U.K. would introduce into its copyright law, it would be
subject to the three-step test which means that the introduction of a fair use test which
is – as was shown above – inconsistent with the three-step test would infringe EC law.
Consequently, a simple fair use test does not comply with EC legislation.
63
64
65
66
67
WTO Panel Report, 37 (para. 6.127).
Heide, EIPR (1999), 105 (108); Kretschmer, EIPR (2003), 333 (336); cf. Burrell/Coleman, Copyright Exceptions, 273.
Hugenholtz, EIPR (2000), 499 (501 et seq.); cf. Vinje, EIPR (2000), 551 (551). See also the Introduction of this article.
Cf. art. 2-4 InfoSoc Directive.
Griffiths,
IPQ (2002), 240 (261); Koelman, EIPR (2006),
407 et seq.; Sterling, World copyright
2
4
law , para. 26F10; Torremans, Intellectual property law , 266; Vinje, EIPR (2000), 551 (553).
16
E. The necessity of a transformation of judicial attitudes
If a simple fair use test were to replace the current fair dealing provisions, a key
question which needs to be addressed would be how judges would react to the introduction of such a defence. Burrell argues that even if a fair use defence were to be
adopted, it would be unlikely to largely improve the present situation if it was not
accompanied by a change of judicial attitudes.68 He bases his proposition on the argument that English judges have, on the whole, interpreted copyright exemptions in
an overly restrictive manner although means and methods existed which could have
been used to constrain copyright.69
I. The development of the public interest defence
One example in favour of this position is the development of the public interest
defence to copyright infringement. According to this common law defence, a person
who makes a disclosure in the public interest may not be liable for copyright infringement.70 Its existence seemed to have been approved by s. 171(3) CDPA which
stipulates that “Nothing in this Part affects any rule of law preventing or restricting
the enforcement of copyright, on grounds of public interest or otherwise”.71 However,
in Hyde Park v Yelland, Aldous LJ stated that there is no general public interest defence to copyright infringement.72 Contrary to Aldous LJ’s opinion, the Court of Appeal, in its later decision in Ashdown v Telegraph Group Ltd, accepted the existence of
a public interest defence but restricted its applicability to those cases in which “the
right of freedom of expression (...) trumps the rights conferred by the Copyright
Act”.73 Thus, although the Court of Appeal did not deny the public interest defence a
place in copyright law it defined its scope narrowly.
II. Even a flexible fair use defence may ossify
It can be said that even a doctrine as flexible as the fair use test may ossify, if it is
interpreted in a restrictive fashion by judges. That certainly does not exclude that the
adoption of a fair use test might be understood by the judiciary as a sign of Parliament’s desire for a more liberal interpretation of exceptions to copyright infringement
and therefore might entail in itself a transformation of judicial attitudes. But it should
be borne in mind that when Parliament signalled its confirmation of the existence of a
68
69
70
71
72
73
Burrell, IPQ (2001), 361 (388); Burrell/Coleman, Copyright Exceptions, 253. Weatherall, Fair use,
fair dealing, 9 makes a similar – but more cautious – point when she argues that “we cannot be
sure how courts in Australia would react to a fair use doctrine until case-law develops”.
Burrell, IPQ (2001), 361 (365, 388).
Beloff v Pressdram, (1973)
1 All ER 241 (259 et seq.) (Ungoed-Thomas J); Bently/Sherman, Intel2
lectual Property Law , 208 et seq; Burrell/Coleman, Copyright Exceptions, 81 et seq.
Hyde2 Park v Yelland, (2000) EMLR 363 (392) (Mance LJ); Bently/Sherman, Intellectual Property
Law , 209 et seq.
Hyde Park v Yelland, (2000) EMLR 363 (383-385, 389) (Aldous LJ).
Ashdown v. Telegraph Group Ltd, (2001) EMLR 44, para. 58. (Lord Phillips MR).
17
public interest defence by introducing art. 171(3) CDPA, judges showed reluctance to
follow this “call”.
F. Conclusion
One the one hand, it was shown that the features of a fair use test are its flexibility, breadth, and simplicity, whereas the fair dealing defences appear rather rigid and
complex. On the other hand, it was also shown that the advantages of a fair use doctrine directly entail disadvantages, such as its uncertainty and unpredictability. Moreover, it was demonstrated that a simple fair use test is inconsistent with art. 9(2) Berne
Convention, art. 13 TRIPS, and Directive 2001/29/EC. It was further argued that in
order to benefit from the flexible and broad nature of a fair use test judicial attitudes
towards the interpretation of copyright exceptions need to change. This change however might not be achieved by the mere introduction of a fair use test. In the light of
these arguments, it is submitted that the considerable disadvantages of a fair use test
are too high a price to pay for its simplicity and flexibility. Therefore, the defences to
copyright infringement contained in the fair dealing provisions of the CDPA should
not be replaced by a simple fair use test. “Fair use” is not a desirable option for U.K.
copyright legislation.
Instead, in order to fulfil the desire for a more flexible approach to the existing exceptions to copyright infringement, judges should construe the fair dealing defences
more liberally. Beginnings of such a development can be seen in decisions like Newspaper Licensing Agency v Marks & Spencer74 and Pro Sieben Media v Carlton Television75
where it was held that fair dealing for the purpose of criticism or review (s. 30(1)
CDPA) and for the purpose of reporting current events (s. 30(2) CDPA) should be
interpreted liberally. Although such an approach would not be as open-ended as a
simple fair use test it would shape the current fair dealing provisions broader and
would create a certain degree of flexibility for the law to adapt itself to technological
changes. It would also comply with U.K.’s international treaty obligations as well as
EC law.
74
75
(1999) EMLR 369 (381) (Lightman J); (2001) Ch 257, para. 75 (Chadwick LJ).
(1999) FSR 610 (620) (Walker LJ).
18
TABLE OF STATUTES
U.K. legislation
Section 29 CDPA 1988: Research and private study
(1) Fair dealing with a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work for the purposes of
research for a non-commercial purpose does not infringe any copyright in the work
provided that it is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement.
(1B) No acknowledgement is required in connection with fair dealing for the purposes mentioned in subsection (1) where this would be impossible for reasons of practicality or otherwise.
(1C) Fair dealing with a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work for the purposes of
private study does not infringe any copyright in the work.
(2) Fair dealing with the typographical arrangement of a published edition for the
purposes of research or private study does not infringe any copyright in the arrangement.
(3) Copying by a person other than the researcher or student himself is not fair dealing if –
(a) in the case of a librarian, or a person acting on behalf of a librarian, he does
anything which regulations under section 40 would not permit to be done under section 38 or 39 (articles or parts of published works: restriction on multiple
copies of same material), or
(b) in any other case, the person doing the copying knows or has reason to believe that it will result in copies of substantially the same material being provided
to more than one person at substantially the same time and for substantially the
same purpose.
(4) It is not fair dealing –
(a) to convert a computer program expressed in a low level language into a version expressed in a higher level language, or
(b) incidentally in the course of so converting the program, to copy it, (these being acts permitted if done in accordance with section 50B (decompilation)).
(4A) It is not fair dealing to observe, study or test the functioning of a computer program in order to determine the ideas and principles which underlie any element of the
program (these acts being permitted if done in accordance with section 50BA (observing, studying and testing)).
Section 30 CDPA 1988: Criticism, review and news reporting
(1) Fair dealing with a work for the purpose of criticism or review, of that or another
work or of a performance of a work, does not infringe any copyright in the work provided that it is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement and provided that the
work has been made available to the public.
(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1) a work has been made available to the public
if it has been made available by any means, including –
(a) the issue of copies to the public;
(b) making the work available by means of an electronic retrieval system;
19
(c) the rental or lending of copies of the work to the public;
(d) the performance, exhibition, playing or showing of the work in public;
(e) the communication to the public of the work, but in determining generally for
the purposes of that subsection whether a work has been made available to the
public no account shall be taken of any unauthorised act.
(2) Fair dealing with a work (other than a photograph) for the purpose of reporting
current events does not infringe any copyright in the work provided that (subject to
subsection (3)) it is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement.
(3) No acknowledgement is required in connection with the reporting of current
events by means of a sound recording, film or broadcast where this would be impossible for reasons of practicality or otherwise.
U.S. legislation
Section 107 United States Copyright Act 1976, 17 USC: Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any
other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news
reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a
work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include –
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted
work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use
if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
20
REFERENCES
Australian Copyright Law Review Committee, Simplification of the Copyright Act 1968, Part
1: Exceptions to the Exclusive Right of Copyright Owners, Canberra 1998.
Ayers, Irene Segal, The future of global copyright protection: has copyright law gone too far?,
University of Pittsburgh Law Review 62 (2000-2001), 49 et seq.
Bainbridge, David, Intellectual property, 6th edition, Essex 2006.
Band, Jonathan, The Google Print Library Project: A Copyright Analysis, Journal of Internet
Banking and Commerce (2005), Volume 10, Number 3, available on the internet:
<http://www.arraydev.com/commerce/jibc> (visited on 3 November 2007).
Bently, Lionel, Copyright's futures: To expand or contract?, Digital Technology Law Journal
(1999) Volume 1, Number 2, available on the internet: <http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/
journals/DTLJ/1999> (visited on 3 November 2007).
– /Sherman, Brad, Intellectual Property Law, 2nd edition, Oxford 2004.
Burrell, Robert, Reining in copyright law: Is fair use the answer, Intellectual Property Quarterly (2001), 361-388.
– /Coleman, Allison, Copyright Exceptions: The digital impact, Cambridge 2005.
Carroll, Michael, Fixing Fair Use, Villanova University School of Law Working Paper Series
Number 64/2006, November 2006, available on the internet: <http://law.bepress.com/
villanovalwps/papers> (visited on 3 November 2007).
Cohen, Julie, WIPO copyright treaty implementation in the United States: Will fair use survive, European Intellectual Property Review (1999), 236-247.
Coombe, Rosemary, Fear, Hope, and Longing for the Future of Authorship and a Revitalized
Public Domain in Global Regimes of Intellectual Property, DePaul Law Review 52
(2003), 1171-1191.
de Zwart, Melissa, An historical analysis of the birth of fair dealing and fair use: Lessons for
the digital age, Intellectual Property Quarterly (2007), 60-91.
Dratler, Jay, Distilling the witches' brew of fair use in copyright law, University of Miami
Law Review 43 (1988), 233 et seq.
Dworkin, Gerald/Taylor, Richard, Blackstone's guide to the Copyright, Designs and Patents
Act 1988, London 1989.
Flint, Michael/Fitzpatrick, Nicholas/Thorne, Clive, A user's guide to copyright, 5th edition,
London 2000.
Geller, Paul, Intellectual property in the global marketplace: Impact of TRIPS dispute settlements?, International Lawyer 29 (1995), 99-115.
Gervais, Daniel, Towards a new core international copyright norm: The reverse three-step
test, Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review, Volume 9, 2005, 1-37.
Goldstein, Paul, International copyright: Principles, law, and practice, Oxford 2001.
Gowers, Andrew, Gowers Review of Intellectual Property, London 2006, available on the
internet:
<http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/gowers_review_
intellectual_property/gowersreview_index.cfm> (visited on 3 November 2007).
Griffiths, Jonathan, Copyright law after Ashdown – time to deal fairly with the public, Intellectual Property Quarterly (2002), 240-264.
21
–
Preserving judicial freedom of movement – interpreting fair dealing in copyright law,
Intellectual Property Quarterly (2000), 164 et seq.
Handa, Sunny, Reverse engineering computer programs under Canadian copyright law,
McGill Law Journal 40 (1995), 621-690.
Heide, Thomas, The Berne three-step test and the proposed copyright directive, European
Intellectual Property Review (1999), 105-109.
Hugenholtz, Bernt, Why the copyright directive is unimportant, and possibly invalid, European Intellectual Property Review (2000), 499-505.
Koelman, Kamiel, Fixing the Three-Step Test, European Intellectual Property Review (2006),
407-412.
Kretschmer, Martin, Digital copyright: The end of an era, European Intellectual Property
Review (2003), 333-341.
Laddie, Justice, Copyright: Over-strength, over-regulated, over-rated, European Intellectual
Property Review (1996), 253-261.
Leaffer, Marshall, The uncertain future of fair use in a global information marketplace, Ohio
State Law Journal 62 (2001), 849-867.
Lehman, Bruce, Intellectual Property and the National Information Infrastructure: The Report of the Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights, United States, Information
Infrastructure Task Force, Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights, September
1995.
Leval, Pierre, Toward a Fair Use Standard, Harvard Law Review 103 (1990), 1105-1136.
Macmillan, Fiona, Adapting the copyright exceptions to the digital environment, Digital
Technology Law Journal (1999), Volume 1, Number 2, available on the internet:
<http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/DTLJ/1999> (visited on 3 November 2007).
Newby, Tyler, What's fair here is not fair everywhere: Does the American Fair Use Doctrine
Violate International Copyright Law?, Stanford Law Review 51 (1998-99), 1633-1663.
Okediji, Ruth, Toward an international fair use doctrine, Columbia Journal of Transnational
Law 39 (2000), 75-175.
Power, Tim, Digitisation of serials and publications: The seminal objective of copyright law,
European Intellectual Property Review (1997), 444-461.
Ricketson, Sam, Simplifying copyright law: Proposals from down under, European Intellectual
Property Review (1999), 537-550.
Sterling, J.A.L., World copyright law, 2nd edition, London 2003.
Torremans, Paul, Intellectual property law, 4th edition, Oxford 2005.
Travis, Hannibal, Google Book Search and Fair Use: iTunes for Authors, or Napster for
books?, University of Miami Law Review 61 (2006), 601-681.
Vinje, Thomas, Should we begin digging copyright's grave, European Intellectual Property
Review (2000), 551-562.
Weatherall, Kimberlee, Fair use, fair dealing: The Copyright Exceptions Review and the Future of Copyright Exceptions in Australia, Intellectual Property Research Institute of
Australia Occasional Paper Number 3/05, May 2005, available on the internet:
<http://www.ipria.org/publications/Occasional%20Papers/occasionalpapers.html> (visited on 3 November 2007).
Weinreb, Lloyd, Lecture: Fair use, Fordham Law Review 67 (1998-1999), 1291-1310.
Beiträge zum Transnationalen Wirtschaftsrecht
(bis Heft 13 erschienen unter dem Titel: Arbeitspapiere aus dem
Institut für Wirtschaftsrecht – ISSN 1619-5388)
ISSN 1612-1368
Bislang erschienene Hefte
Heft 1
Wiebe-Katrin Boie, Der Handel mit Emissionsrechten in der EG/EU –
Neue Rechtssetzungsinitiative der EG-Kommission, März 2002, ISBN 386010-639-2
Heft 2
Susanne Rudisch, Die institutionelle Struktur der Welthandelsorganisation
(WTO): Reformüberlegungen, April 2002, ISBN 3-86010-646-5
Heft 3
Jost Delbrück, Das Staatsbild im Zeitalter wirtschaftsrechtlicher Globalisierung, Juli 2002, ISBN 3-86010-654-6
Heft 4
Christian Tietje, Die historische Entwicklung der rechtlichen Disziplinierung technischer Handelshemmnisse im GATT 1947 und in der WTORechtsordnung, August 2002, ISBN 3-86010-655-4
Heft 5
Ludwig Gramlich, Das französische Asbestverbot vor der WTO, August
2002, ISBN 3-86010-653-8
Heft 6
Sebastian Wolf, Regulative Maßnahmen zum Schutz vor gentechnisch veränderten Organismen und Welthandelsrecht, September 2002, ISBN 386010-658-9
Heft 7
Bernhard Kluttig/Karsten Nowrot, Der „Bipartisan Trade Promotion
Authority Act of 2002“ – Implikationen für die Doha-Runde der WTO,
September 2002, ISBN 3-86010-659-7
Heft 8
Karsten Nowrot, Verfassungsrechtlicher Eigentumsschutz von InternetDomains, Oktober 2002, ISBN 3-86010-664-3
Heft 9
Martin Winkler, Der Treibhausgas-Emissionsrechtehandel im Umweltvölkerrecht, November 2002, ISBN 3-86010-665-1
Heft 10 Christian Tietje, Grundstrukturen und aktuelle Entwicklungen des Rechts
der Beilegung internationaler Investitionsstreitigkeiten, Januar 2003, ISBN
3-86010-671-6
Heft 11 Gerhard Kraft/Manfred Jäger/Anja Dreiling, Abwehrmaßnahmen gegen
feindliche Übernahmen im Spiegel rechtspolitischer Diskussion und ökonomischer Sinnhaftigkeit, Februar 2003, ISBN 3-86010-647-0
Heft 12 Bernhard Kluttig, Welthandelsrecht und Umweltschutz – Kohärenz statt
Konkurrenz, März 2003, ISBN 3-86010-680-5
Heft 13 Gerhard Kraft, Das Corporate Governance-Leitbild des deutschen Unternehmenssteuerrechts: Bestandsaufnahme – Kritik – Reformbedarf, April
2003, ISBN 3-86010-682-1
Heft 14 Karsten Nowrot/Yvonne Wardin, Liberalisierung der Wasserversorgung in
der WTO-Rechtsordnung – Die Verwirklichung des Menschenrechts auf
Wasser als Aufgabe einer transnationalen Verantwortungsgemeinschaft, Juni
2003, ISBN 3-86010-686-4
Heft 15 Alexander Böhmer/Guido Glania, The Doha Development Round: Reintegrating Business Interests into the Agenda – WTO Negotiations from a
German Industry Perspective, Juni 2003, ISBN 3-86010-687-2
Heft 16 Dieter Schneider, „Freimütige, lustige und ernsthafte, jedoch vernunft- und
gesetzmäßige Gedanken“ (Thomasius) über die Entwicklung der Lehre vom
gerechten Preis und fair value, Juli 2003, ISBN 3-86010-696-1
Heft 17 Andy Ruzik, Die Anwendung von Europarecht durch Schiedsgerichte,
August 2003, ISBN 3-86010-697-X
Heft 18 Michael Slonina, Gesundheitsschutz contra geistiges Eigentum? Aktuelle
Probleme des TRIPS-Übereinkommens, August 2003, ISBN 3-86010-6988
Heft 19 Lorenz Schomerus, Die Uruguay-Runde: Erfahrungen eines ChefUnterhändlers, September 2003, ISBN 3-86010-704-6
Heft 20 Michael Slonina, Durchbruch im Spannungsverhältnis TRIPS and Health:
Die WTO-Entscheidung zu Exporten unter Zwangslizenzen, September
2003, ISBN 3-86010-705-4
Heft 21 Karsten Nowrot, Die UN-Norms on the Responsibility of Transnational
Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights
– Gelungener Beitrag zur transnationalen Rechtsverwirklichung oder das
Ende des Global Compact?, September 2003, ISBN 3-86010-706-2
Heft 22 Gerhard Kraft/Ronald Krengel, Economic Analysis of Tax Law – Current
and Past Research Investigated from a German Tax Perspective, Oktober
2003, ISBN 3-86010-715-1
Heft 23 Ingeborg Fogt Bergby, Grundlagen und aktuelle Entwicklungen im
Streitbeilegungsrecht nach dem Energiechartavertrag aus norwegischer
Perspektive, November 2003, ISBN 3-86010-719-4
Heft 24 Lilian Habermann/Holger Pietzsch, Individualrechtsschutz im EGAntidumpingrecht: Grundlagen und aktuelle Entwicklungen, Februar 2004,
ISBN 3-86010-722-4
Heft 25 Matthias Hornberg, Corporate Governance: The Combined Code 1998 as
a Standard for Directors’ Duties, März 2004, ISBN 3-86010-724-0
Heft 26 Christian Tietje, Current Developments under the WTO Agreement on
Subsidies and Countervailing Measures as an Example for the Functional
Unity of Domestic and International Trade Law, März 2004, ISBN 386010-726-7
Heft 27 Henning Jessen, Zollpräferenzen für Entwicklungsländer: WTO-rechtliche
Anforderungen an Selektivität und Konditionalität – Die GSPEntscheidung des WTO Panel und Appellate Body, Mai 2004, ISBN 386010-730-5
Heft 28 Tillmann Rudolf Braun, Investment Protection under WTO Law – New
Developments in the Aftermath of Cancún, Mai 2004, ISBN 3-86010-7313
Heft 29 Juliane Thieme, Latente Steuern – Der Einfluss internationaler Bilanzierungsvorschriften auf die Rechnungslegung in Deutschland, Juni 2004,
ISBN 3-86010-733-X
Heft 30 Bernhard Kluttig, Die Klagebefugnis Privater gegen EU-Rechtsakte in der
Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofes: Und die Hoffnung stirbt
zuletzt…, September 2004, ISBN 3-86010-746-1
Heft 31 Ulrich Immenga, Internationales Wettbewerbsrecht: Unilateralismus, Bilateralismus, Multilateralismus, Oktober 2004, ISBN 3-86010-748-8
Heft 32 Horst G. Krenzler, Die Uruguay Runde aus Sicht der Europäischen Union,
Oktober 2004, ISBN 3-86010-749-6
Heft 33 Karsten Nowrot, Global Governance and International Law, November
2004, ISBN 3-86010-750-X
Heft 34 Ulrich Beyer/Carsten Oehme/Friederike Karmrodt, Der Einfluss der
Europäischen Grundrechtecharta auf die Verfahrensgarantien im
Unionsrecht, November 2004, ISBN 3-86010-755-0
Heft 35 Frank Rieger/Johannes Jester/ Michael Sturm, Das Europäische
Kartellverfahren: Rechte und Stellung der Beteiligten nach Inkrafttreten der
VO 1/03, Dezember 2004, ISBN 3-86010-764-X
Heft 36 Kay Wissenbach, Systemwechsel im europäischen Kartellrecht:
Dezentralisierte Rechtsanwendung in transnationalen Wettbewerbsbeziehungen durch die VO 1/03, Februar 2005, ISBN 3-86010-766-6
Heft 37 Christian Tietje, Die Argentinien-Krise aus rechtlicher Sicht: Staatsanleihen
und Staateninsolvenz, Februar 2005, ISBN 3-86010-770-4
Heft 38 Matthias Bickel, Die Argentinien-Krise aus ökonomischer Sicht:
Herausforderungen an Finanzsystem und Kapitalmarkt, März 2005, ISBN
3-86010-772-0
Heft 39 Nicole Steinat, Comply or Explain – Die Akzeptanz von Corporate
Governance Kodizes in Deutschland und Großbritannien, April 2005,
ISBN 3-86010-774-7
Heft 40 Karoline Robra, Welthandelsrechtliche Aspekte der internationalen
Besteuerung aus europäischer Perspektive, Mai 2005, ISBN 3-86010-782-8
Heft 41 Jan Bron, Grenzüberschreitende Verschmelzung von Kapitalgesellschaften
in der EG, Juli 2005, ISBN 3-86010-791-7
Heft 42 Christian Tietje/Sebastian Wolf, REACH Registration of Imported Substances – Compatibility with WTO Rules, July 2005, ISBN 3-86010-793-3
Heft 43 Claudia Decker, The Tension between Political and Legal Interests in Trade
Disputes: The Case of the TEP Steering Group, August 2005, ISBN 386010-796-8
Heft 44 Christian Tietje (Hrsg.), Der Beitritt Russlands zur Welthandelsorganisation
(WTO), August 2005, ISBN 3-86010-798-4
Heft 45 Wang Heng, Analyzing the New Amendments of China’s Foreign Trade
Act and its Consequent Ramifications: Changes and Challenges, September
2005, ISBN 3-86010-802-6
Heft 46 James Bacchus, Chains Across the Rhine, October 2005, ISBN 3-86010803-4
Heft 47 Karsten Nowrot, The New Governance Structure of the Global Compact –
Transforming a “Learning Network” into a Federalized and Parliamentarized Transnational Regulatory Regime, November 2005, ISBN 3-86010806-9
Heft 48 Christian Tietje, Probleme der Liberalisierung des internationalen Dienstleistungshandels – Stärken und Schwächen des GATS, November 2005,
ISBN 3-86010-808-5
Heft 49 Katja Moritz/Marco Gesse, Die Auswirkungen des Sarbanes-Oxley Acts auf
deutsche Unternehmen, Dezember 2005, ISBN 3-86010-813-1
Heft 50 Christian Tietje/Alan Brouder/Karsten Nowrot (eds.), Philip C. Jessup’s
Transnational Law Revisited – On the Occasion of the 50th Anniversary of
its Publication, February 2006, ISBN 3-86010-825-5
Heft 51 Susanne Probst, Transnationale Regulierung der Rechnungslegung – International Accounting Standards Committee Foundation und Deutsches
Rechnungslegungs Standards Committee, Februar 2006, ISBN 3-86010826-3
Heft 52 Kerstin Rummel, Verfahrensrechte im europäischen Arzneimittelzulassungsrecht, März 2006, ISBN 3-86010-828-X
Heft 53 Marko Wohlfahrt, Gläubigerschutz bei EU-Auslandsgesellschaften, März
2006, ISBN (10) 3-86010-831-X, ISBN (13) 978-3-86010-831-4
Heft 54 Nikolai Fichtner, The Rise and Fall of the Country of Origin Principle in
the EU’s Services Directive – Uncovering the Principle’s Premises and Potential Implications –, April 2006, ISBN (10) 3-86010-834-4, ISBN (13)
978-3-86010-834-5
Heft 55 Anne Reinhardt-Salcinovic, Informelle Strategien zur Korruptionsbekämpfung – Der Einfluss von Nichtregierungsorganisationen am Beispiel von
Transparency International –, Mai 2006, ISBN (10) 3-86010-840-9, ISBN
(13) 978-3-86010-840-6
Heft 56 Marius Rochow, Die Maßnahmen von OECD und Europarat zur Bekämpfung der Bestechung, Mai 2006, ISBN (10) 3-86010-842-5, ISBN (13)
978-3-86010-842-0
Heft 57 Christian J. Tams, An Appealing Option? The Debate about an ICSID Appellate Structure, Juni 2006, ISBN (10) 3-86010-843-3, ISBN (13) 978-386010-843-7
Heft 58 Sandy Hamelmann, Internationale Jurisdiktionskonflikte und Vernetzungen
transnationaler Rechtsregime – Die Entscheidungen des Panels und des Appellate Body der WTO in Sachen “Mexico – Tax Measures on Soft Drinks
and Other Beverages” –, Juli 2006, ISBN (10) 3-86010-850-6, ISBN (13)
978-3-86010-850-5
Heft 59 Torje Sunde, Möglichkeiten und Grenzen innerstaatlicher Regulierung nach
Art. VI GATS, Juli 2006, ISBN (10) 3-86010-849-2, ISBN (13) 978-386010-849-9
Heft 60 Kay Wissenbach, Schadenersatzklagen gegen Kartellmitglieder – Offene
Fragen nach der 7. Novellierung des GWB, August 2006, ISBN (10) 386010-852-2, ISBN (13) 978-3-86010-852-9
Heft 61 Sebastian Wolf, Welthandelsrechtliche Rahmenbedingungen für die Liberalisierung ausländischer Direktinvestitionen – Multilaterale Investitionsverhandlungen oder Rückbesinnung auf bestehende Investitionsregelungen im
Rahmen der WTO?, September 2006, ISBN (10) 3-86010-860-3, ISBN
(13) 978-3-86010-860-4
Heft 62 Daniel Kirmse, Cross-Border Delisting – Der Börsenrückzug deutscher Aktiengesellschaften mit Zweitnotierungen an ausländischen Handelsplätzen,
Oktober 2006, ISBN (10) 3-86010-861-1, ISBN (13) 978-3-86010-861-1
Heft 63 Karoline Kampermann, Aktuelle Entwicklungen im internationalen Investitionsschutzrecht mit Blick auf die staatliche Steuersouveränität, Dezember
2006, ISBN (10) 3-86010-879-4, ISBN (13) 978-3-86010-879-6
Heft 64 Maria Pätz, Die Auswirkungen der Zinsrichtlinie innerhalb der EU und im
Verhältnis zur Schweiz, April 2007, ISBN 978-3-86010-904-5
Heft 65 Norman Hölzel, Kartellrechtlicher Individualrechtsschutz im Umbruch –
Neue Impulse durch Grünbuch und Zementkartell, Mai 2007, ISBN 978-386010-903-8
Heft 66 Karsten Nowrot, Netzwerke im Transnationalen Wirtschaftsrecht und
Rechtsdogmatik, Mai 2007, ISBN 978-3-86010-908-3
Heft 67 Marzena Przewlocka, Die rechtliche Regelung von Directors’ Dealings in
Deutschland und Polen – unter Berücksichtigung der Neuerungen durch
das Transparenzrichtlinie-Umsetzungsgesetz –, Juni 2007, ISBN 978-386010-909-0
Heft 68 Steffen Fritzsche, Open Skies EU-USA – an extraordinary achievement!?
August 2007, ISBN 978-3-86010-933-5
Heft 69 Günter Hirsch, Internationalisierung und Europäisierung des Privatrechts,
September 2007, ISBN 978-3-86010-922-9
Heft 70 Karsten Nowrot, The Relationship between National Legal Regulations and
CSR Instruments: Complementary or Exclusionary Approaches to Good
Corporate Citizenship? Oktober 2007, ISBN 978-3-86010-945-8
Heft 71 Martin Brenncke, Is “fair use” an option for U.K. copyright legislation? November 2007, ISBN 978-3-86010-963-2